Gish in D&D 5e

Paladin is really the best gish at the moment

>>55345838
Assuming you restrict it to Int-based casting specifically, I'd say you're after a handful of levels as Eldritch Knight before multiclassing into Wizard for a bunch of spellslots.

The Cantrips that they introduced in the sword coast adventure guide help a more pure Eldritch Knight out a lot, but overall in 5e there's nothing that's going to blend both sword and spell as perfectly as you want it, aside from Paladin like >>55345878 pointed out.

Honestly I'd wish they kept the playtest version of the Sorcerer which had a Gish aspect to its bloodlines by default.

If you are concerned more about thematics though, I think the Hexblade Warlock got some new options in an Unearthed Arcana recently. Can't speak to whether or not they make the class more functional, but it might be a fun way to play a spellcaster with a sword that's more flavorful at least.

>>55345878

Sure Paladin is a great class, but its by no means the traditional definition of a Gish, in this case being a Fighter / ARCANE Magic User.

That said, 2 levels of Fighter and the rest in Warlock do the job just fine seeing as Warlocks Extra Attack Invocation only requires Character Level 5, and not Warlock Level 5 to learn.

>>55346238
Blade Pact isn't really worth taking as Warlock unless you can also go for a Hexblade Patron. The baseline in core doesn't offer any real benefits as long as Eldritch Blast is still an option.

>>55346219
My problem with Paladin is that it's still not that great as a class, especially when Bard exists or you can just take 2 levels of Paladin and then 18 of Bard to be better than the Paladin at being a Paladin

>>55346363

I always love that Multiclass at my table. "I'm going to be a Paladin, I'm gonna take an oath and be a noble champion and do whats right"

Three Sessions later "Yea so I ended up taking my Third level into Bard and I just never stopped cuz I could still Smite, and WAY more often. Also Vicious Mockery is Hilarious"

>>55346363
>Missing out on Aura of Protection and Improved Divine Smite

Paladin is one of the best classes in 5e. Probably the best that isn't a full caster.

Fighter 1 / Sorcerer X.
Quicken or Twinned Booming Blade is your "spell strike".

>>55346419
It's the best that isn't a full caster, yeah.
Too bad casters still dominate in 5e. Aura of Protection is good, Improved Smite is ok. Kinda weak by the time you get it.
>>55346408
It's actually an extremely flavorful class if you play it like a skald or a holy warrior inspiring his allies via inspiration and the like.

>>55346513
>Too bad casters still dominate in 5e

Let me rephrase. It's the best class that isn't Wizard, Bard, or Moon Druid. Namely because Wizard has the most broken spells, Bard can steal those along with high level spells from the half-casters because it's designed poorly, and Moon Druid because Wildshape is designed poorly.

If I was going for strict power in a party of 4, I'd put Paladin on the list before a Cleric or a Sorcerer.

>>55345838
Hopefully the swordmage will eventually be a class.

>>55346585

I'm just gonna homebrew a proper Gish class myself. Already had to do a homebrew archtype for the Ranger, and a few Sorcerer Bloodlines.

Why not a Gish at this point.

>>55346585
>>55346606
I always felt like the pieces of a Swordmage were all there in other class features, but it's too level intensive to really pull off.

The Abjuration Wizard's level 6 feature seems like it could be great fun on an actual frontline class though to protect allies, and combined with some way to use melee cantrips to better effect could be a fun combo.

>>55346554
Just make wildshape maintain the HP missing percentage when shifting between forms and it's fine.

>>55346694
Yeah, overall my issues with those three classes aren't that hard to fix with a few houserules and changes. Maybe still not as balanced as some people would like, but my concern is more in the realm of overshadowing roles and breaking the game.

As long as a Bard isn't setting himself up to be a better archer than a Ranger and a Wizard isn't pulling off some nonsense with Simulacrum, the game works fine.

>>55345838
Some anon's that frequently post in /5eg/ have made ports of both Pathfinder's Magus and 3.5's Duskblade, and styled them as arcane half caster classes. I might have saved the PDF for both of them, I'm not certain. Let me go check my local folders...

>>55346765
Sadly I canteen to find them. I remember the Duskblade one being more like a DPR version of a Paladin, trading heavy armor proficiency and going to a d8 hit die for the Arcane Channeling they had in 3.5 and the option to cast spells as bonus actions a limited number of times per long rest. Most of the spell list seemed to be blaster spells, with a few buff ones like Fly or Haste.

I believe the Magus version focused on applying various magical marks, brands, and curses to either debuff the foe or buff the damage they dealt, with the trade off being burning spell slots to perform said curses. I think their spell options were mostly utility with some blaster spells.

>>55345838
Don't forget 4e's Swordmage, which was a teleporting unarmored sword-wielder who warded off blows with arcane wards and literally melded melee & magic into every single attack.

Compared to that, 5e's efforts are jokes.

>>55346337
This. You're essentially using all your character building options to be able to eldtrich blast in melee

>>55347530
Yeah. The Hexblade at least makes it a bit less bad in that regard, since it lets you use Charisma for melee without needing to spend an Invocation like Eldritch Blast does for damage, and there are a few Invocations that can give it some other upsides in damage.

Still probably not as good as a standard warlock of another school, but at least it's not a completely pointless tradeoff like Blade Pact was alone.

>>55347485
4e swordmages wore leather armor

>>55347595
Funny thing about hexblade is that while it makes blade pact warlocks better, it also makes eldritch-blast spamming warlocks better as well, as the bonuses from hexblade curse apply to all attacks, not just weapon attacks

>>55347637
True, although the article also had a few Invocations that worked nicely for that, and the Hexblade will be a step ahead on Evocations, since it doesn't need to spend one to get Cha to attack and damage rolls. Plus there's one to simply teleport next to the target of your curse.

Again, I'm not saying it's the most optimal warlock out there, but it does solve a lot of the problems bladelocks had with being super detrimental. I'll take 'somewhat below par' over 'actively useless class features'

>>55346238
All invocations that require a level were errata'd to require that WARLOCK level.

Mostly because warlock was the multiclass bait class.

>>55347720
It still is, though mainly because 2 levels as any class with solid Charisma gives you a great ranged attack that automatically scales as you level.

And all it costs is your eternal soul, what a bargain.

>>55347753
Sorlocks are still the kings of damage when magic weapons aren't taken into account

Because eldritch blast + quickened eldritch blast is a lot of damage

>>55345878
>>55346238
Sorcadin, or if you start at high enough level/don't mind being kinda meh until you "get online"/allow UA multiclass sorclockadin.

>>55347485
I played one in 4ed I miss him.

>>55347485
Please tell us how the 4e swordmage and 5e's gishes differ and in what way?

>>55348371
Not him, but the big one is the Aegis. The rest you can sorta make do, if you are patient and multiclass some stuff.

>>55348371
Not him, but I think a couple big things about the 4e Swordmage were that they could use a blade as an implement, leaving their offhand free for a specialized ward spell that gave them a sort of swashbuckling vibe. Combine that with a lot of their attacks being a mix of elemental effects and melee attacks, along with a focus on teleporting around the battlefield to stab enemies or protect allies, and they had a really cool feel to them.

I think most of the pieces are there in 5e to make something similar, although the tricky bit is that they're spread around in a lot of places.

>>55348475
>>55348519
Basically, if they added Aegis as a first level spell (like they turned Warlock's hex into a 1st level spell), or possibly a cantrip, you could do it with bladesinger. A bit low on health, but having the AC sorta makes up for it.

>>55347485
M8ey compared to any 4e design element 5e is a joke.

>>55348537
I feel like you could translate it over as either a Shield spell that targetted an ally or a Hellish Rebuke style effect that could protect your friends instead, but both of those seem really lame in comparison, especially if it costs a spell slot each time.

And doing much more seems like a bit much. The Abjuration wizard gets a damage-reducing reaction that can protect allies starting at level 6, and the Hexblade Warlock gets a way to teleport next to enemies repeatedly at level 5.

Honestly, with the cantrips already in the game, I'm getting the feeling that maybe the Swordmage's Aegis effects would be better statted up as a feat. Something an Eldritch Knight, Bladesinger, or maybe even a Warlock or Sorcerer could pick up in order to give them a way to protect their allies.

>>55348619
Well, if it'd eat both your concentration and your reaction it may be balanced as a spell.

I know that taking a slot sucks, but the alternative is a new class (admittedly, there's no arcane half-caster, and only 1 INT caster, so I don't see a problem with just having a swordmage).

>>55346238
>requires Character Level 5, and not Warlock Level 5 to learn.
So you didn't bother to read the erratas

the most gish experience I had in 5e was with:
Pal/Undyinglight Warlock/Draconic Sorcerer

File: chinchillarogue.jpg (715KB, 1181x772px) Image search: [Google]

715KB, 1181x772px

>>55345838
Valor bard.

Full arcane casting, wears armour, can fight.

If you want to multiclass take two levels of something else for class features

>>55346554
>moon druids
>good past level 4
Opinion discarded

>>55348537
Honestly, my biggest issue with the Bladesinger as a stand-in for the Swordmage is not so much the lack of Aegis as the fact that the spells don't mesh up.

The Swordmage in 4e is a close to medium-ranged combatant; its spells are quick-casting affairs intended to be used up close and in person.

The Bladesinger, though, uses the standard Wizard spells, which mostly assume you're standing well-back from the melee and sniping with magic missiles and disintegrates and stuff.

The Bladesinger's inherently not suited for the Swordmage's "feel" because it's aimed at being more of a wizard with a little emergency melee training.

I'm not necessarily saying a 5e Swordmage as its own seperate Arcane Tradition is required, but the Bladesinger would be a LOT closer to the Swordmage if WoTC had converted over more of the Swordmage's spells.

There's a reason that the handful they DID convert are considered essential for any gish player to grab, be it Bladesinger, Bladelock or Eldritch Knight.

I always thought a Gish had to have synergy between his martial side and his caster side, that's why I never considered some of the 3.5 ""gishes"" an actual gish because there's no synergy is either you cast or you martial.

Duskblade (3.5) and Magus (PF) are way more synergetic (?) and Paladin (5e) is way less but at least has some synergy.

>>55349037
>level 4
They stay above up to 5th level, then they get a downgrade to good. I've seen a lot of play with them both from the player and GM perspective.

Also keep in mind that the Swordmage was meant to be used as a Tank/Controller in 4e, to absorb damage and shift foes around a bit (or even teleport themselves to a foe) and rely on the Aegis to keep them and their allies afloat.

I think the "best" way to do this in 5e would be to make it as an arcane half caster and they pick their archetype at first level: Swordmage for a tanky protector of allies that uses Aegis to increase AC and add a bonus to saves, Duskblade as a more bursty blaster fighter that gets Arcane Channeling for nova potential, and Magus as a full-time controller/debuff who burns spell slots to weaken foes or buff allies. Swordmage probably gets more armor proficiency, Duskblade knows more spells, and Magus gets a variation of Warlock Invocations as spell-like abilities.

>>55349101
That's why you see so many bladesingers who actually don't go melee

>>55348677
God man, whats the point of owning a physical copy of the Players handbook when they force you to check online every few months for an Errata.

>>55349101
Well yeah, the spells besides Aegis are also a problem, but you can sorta just pick out the ones that do exist and use those (blade cantrips, burning hands, uh... not sure what else, I'm not on top of my 5e). Yeah, some more melee spells would be nice.

You probably want to be some combination of Bladesinger + EK for a better Swordmage feel anyway. Full on Bladesinger is a bit too cast-y, EK is too little, combined they should be fine.

>>55349302
Errata for that wasn't even needed because power escaling always comes from the class you got that power, but because people like to munchkin they have to make rules clearer.

>>55346238
>Sure Paladin is a great class, but its by no means the traditional definition of a Gish, in this case being a Fighter / ARCANE Magic User.
A "traditional" definition of a gish is solely based on the available classes at the time. There is nothing about a paladin's list of abilities and spells that does not make it a gish through and through in 5e, just like the Mystic UA is also a great gish in 5e.

These retarded super narrow definitions that keep getting more and more narrow as time goes on is stupid.

Well, at least now that there is a Githyanki player race in playtest as of yesterday we are a step closer to the true Gish.

>>55345838
Stone Sorcerer and Hexblade have, in my experience, made hilariously competent gishes. to the point where I have a Stone/Hex sorlock that the party munchkin is still yelling at me for not arming with Eldritch Blast despite him being a fully functional bastard without it.

>>55348685
That's cool for stacking CHA bonuses to GFB and twin it or quicken it with sorcerer metamagic.

>>55350507
Yeah, especially tomelock for shillelagh or hexblade

>>55350981
>hexblade
Not really, undying light gives you +Cha to fire and radiant spells so for every GFB you add +Cha to damage (and because you quicken it you GFB twice per turn), Hexblade has no such thing. Also Draconic Sorcerer adds +Cha to fire damage too (if correct dragon).

>>55349182
Moon druid just feels like it was off handedly made because "druids need to be able to shapeshift" and then forgotten about.

It spikes at level 2 and can't be stopped until level 5. Then at 5 it falls off a cliff until 10, where it proceeds to be good for another 2 or 3 levels before being underpowered again.

>>55349269
Yeah, Bladesinger has the unfortunate side effect of being stapled to an amazing class. It's not really a sword mage so much as it's a cooldown for free +5 AC.

>>55351331
Hexblade has a few upsides:
- it comes online (giving you CHA to attack) at level 1 instead of level 3
- it doesn't lock you into Tome (for shillelagh), so you can grab blade pact for the CHA to damage (if you go that far) that works universally/doesn't require a bonus to activate/can be used with any weapon not just staffs, and warlock smites
- you are not locked into Fire as your damage source, so you can use the sorc variant that adds +CHA to your thunder damage, which means you can use booming blade instead of GFB, which can be twinned as well as quickened
- hexblade curse for some extra damage

>>55351422

Tying it to actual monster stats was a terrible idea. They should have paid attention to 4e where it was 'You turn into a primal representation of nature, while it can be any animal you don't need to go through books to find the best statline'. Give it scaling Natural Weapons (The exact sort are up to you), special movement at level 5 or something and extra attack (Limited to your Natural Weapons).

>>55351422
With summoning spells I'm pretty sure it's still very solid. Especially if you start with a CON class dip + take warcaster, then turn into some high-CON form.

File: Monster_Manual_5e_-_Githyanki_-_p160.jpg (194KB, 1000x1415px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1000x1415px

>>55345838
>The Prefect Gish.

>>55346712
>As long as people don't take advantage of this boon, the game isn't imbalanced at all.
I thought we moved past this after hearing 3aboos spout this same garbage for over a decade.

If there's an option in the game that's objectively superior to another option within the game, you'd be doing yourself a disservice in not picking that option since the devs intended for people to use those options when confronting encounters.

>>55351477
>giving you CHA to attack
Not really, it exchanges Str/Dex for Cha, but yeah, that's nice. Also Undying like +Cha to Fire and Radiant appears at 1st level so I'm already dealing [W]+Str+Cha while you deal [W]+Cha and against a single dude per short rest you add +Prof
>it doesn't lock you into Tome
Neither does pal/undyinglight/draconicsorcerer, I wasn't Tome, I could, but I wasn't, I went Bladepact because teleporting out of anywhere weapon sounded cool even if I didn't get much benefit
>you are not locked into Fire as your damage source
This was a problem I agree

In the end my GFB dealt 3d8+Str+2xCha vs primary target and 4d8+3xCha to secondary target.

Compared to your BB that deals 3d8+2xCha and if it moves 4d8 (+Prof against a single dude per short rest)

Yours sound like a cool build too.

>>55345838
Paladins and Valor Bards, but both of them are pretty much martials who occasionally cast spells.

>>55351625
>Valor Bard
>Martial who occasionally cast spells

>>55351578
Ah, I thought you were going for the CHA monkey build with shillelagh. In that case, Hexblade has the really big upside (imo, anyway) that it focuses on CHA and doesn't need STR for attacks (though it doesn't have the tome-related upsides, and you probably want some for Plate).

>>55349787
The traditional gish is a Fighter/Mage multiclass. Paladin is not a fucking Fighter/Mage anywhere outside of a very specific combination of ACFs and feats in 3.5.

>>55351635
I fucked up that post, I meant to post EK instead of Valor Bard.

File: Diabolic Channel.png (1MB, 828x602px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 828x602px

>>55345838
I always feel as if they made a Gish class with the ability to channel spells through weapons it would probably go over better. Something like this ability from the Homebrew Blood Hunter Class.

For context for those who have never used Blood Hunter, to use this ability you have to enchant your weapon by sacrificing current HP + Max HP = to your character level as a bonus action to do additional damage. You can also use this ability while this enchantment is active.

What do you guys think, in regards to the channeling ability do you think this is too much and maybe breaks the action economy or you think this is just what we need to fill the void?

>>55351699
People need to shut the fuck up about action economy because there are things that already exist in 5E that break it harder than any gish could.

A good gish will never exist in 5e because the system is designed to be as bland and uninteresting as possible to appeal to both grogs and normies who have never played an RPG before.

You'd be better off playing something like exalted since it's a system that's meant to be balanced around the fact that it's a) not meant to be balanced and b) meant to feature larger than life heroes doing awesome feats because they're beyond human limitation.

>>55351723
I'd like some examples as to things that already break it for your claim. (I'm not saying Channeling would break it I'm just trying to gauge the rooms thoughts.) Do you think the channeling feature would help with the gish-like feel?

>>55351761
Quicken Spell, Action Surge, whatever the fuck the Eldritch Knight's bonus action casting feature is called.

>>55351792
War magic.

>>55351792
>Quicken Spell
Limited, use bonus action.
>Action Surge
Very Limited once per short rest to regain action.
>War Magic + Improved War Magic
Uses both action and bonus action for Cantrip + Bonus action attack/ Spell + Bonus Action attack.

I don't see how these break the action economy. They are either limited in nature or require both the action and bonus action to utilize.

A channeling feature would only use your action to both cast and attack.
EX
>As an action I cast Lightning Bolt and channel that through my longbow, and fire the arrow. Arrow hits weapon damage + saving throws are made for the spell effect.

>Bonus action to do ??? whatever you can do as a bonus action.

Valor Bard or Fighter 1 / Lore Bard?

>>55351556
I'm speaking as a DM for things that I ban. Bards pinching Swift Quiver at mid-level instead of endgame and Wizards getting infinite wishes do not seem intentional in the slightest.

>>55345838
>the flavor of eldritch knight and spellsword is literally just "guy who casts spells and has swords"
>the flavor of duskblade is "elf who casts spells and has swords."
>the flavor of the eldritch knight, arcane trickster, and valor bard is "guy who casts spells and has swords"
>the flavor of bladesinger is "elf who casts spells and has swords"
>you think 5e's gishes are lacking thematically

You are an idiot.

>>55352326
Bards stealing Swift Quiver and smites are absolutely intentional. Archivists did the exact same thing with Paladin and Ranger spells back in 3.5 and it was 100% intentional.

>>55352326
If the rules interact in such a way that it allows a player to access those exploits then the exploit was intentional, even if the devs are not wholly aware of it.

Like for example, if I take "red" and combine it with "blue," it'll still make purple even if I'm unaware that such a thing was possible.

>>55352326
>Bards Pinching Swift Quiver/Destructive Wave
This is pretty intentional, a full caster swiping up a spell from a half caster is completely fine as written.

>Wizards Getting infinite Wishes
Wish has a limitation in which you could theoretically lose the ability to cast the spell forever and it also affects your Strength score.

>>55352326
You are a good DM. 5E become really satisfying after these quick little surgeries done to the more 3aboo parts of the rules.

>>55351757
A good gish will never exist in 5e because players are idiots who have some kind of hysterical blindness to all the good gish options that are already there.

>>55352409
>It's fine when the Bard becomes a better archer than the Ranger focused on archery just because he picked a spell

>>55352453
>A good gish will never exist in 5e because players are idiots who have some kind of hysterical blindness to all the good gish options that are already there.
Such as?

>>55352475
Blame WotC.

>>55352475
Don't hate the player, hate the game. Besides, Rangers suck anyhow.

>>55352453
>good gish options that are already there
>Eldritch Knight: hit things, suck ass at magic
>Paladin: hit things, suck less at magic
>Bladesinger: zero incentive to use the class as a gish instead of a Wizard that can't be touched
>Bard: hit things or be a full spellcaster unless you steal the Paladin's smites
>Warlock: lol blade pact

>>55351757
Exalted is needlessly complicated in every way. What could have been a cool freeform game about making up epic stunts became a quagmire of overly granular rules and even worse ivory tower game design than 3.5. There are so many moving parts during character creation, they move in such weird ways, and everything is described with such unhelpful purple prose that you have no idea if you've made something broken or unplayable.

>>55352475
Fighters by nature are better Archers than Rangers blame WotC for that. Bards are better than Rangers by design.

>>55352534
Those are all good options.

No matter what, when you go for breadth rather than depth you're going to have a plan A and a backup plan. You can either be a fighter with spells for backup or a caster with weapons for backup. That you want to be good as a specialist in both swords and spells without having to specialize signifies that you are a munchkin optimizer who just wants to break the game open.

>>55352573
Have you actually played it before? If so, what edition was it?

>>55352616
No, they're not.

>>55352616
>Those are all good options.
Lol no, what are you smoking?
>You can either be a fighter with spells for backup or a caster with weapons for backup.
Then you're not a gish, you're just a martial/mage with more options that suck in the long run.
>That you want to be good as a specialist in both swords and spells without having to specialize signifies that you are a munchkin optimizer who just wants to break the game open.
Ah, the classic retort of a buttmad roleplayer who can't build a good character to save his life. How bout next time you just flip coins and leave RPG's to people who actually want to play them, m'kay?

>>55352604
Depends, by the time a Fighter has 4 attacks so does have the Ranger (5 if he has giant slayer?), so you could argue is not that easy to say which is better at archery.

Bard though gets 4 attacks with archery like way way way earlier than Ranger making him better than ranger at archery.

>>55352616
You're the one assuming that people want Lightning Warriors instead of Duskblades or Maguses when they're talking about gishes.

>>55352627
I've played 2nd and 3rd, each of which has its own special problems, but they share the general theme of having way more rules and player bells and whistles than necessary. They should have embraced the fact that their setting is way too diverse and outlandish to be simulated by rules and just made it more narrative.

The sheer volume of charms that do only marginally different things is stupid, having a different charm tree for every kind of martial arts is stupid, beginning the description of each charm with useless fluff before getting to what it actually does is stupid, increasing your wound levels with a charm rather than just with points is stupid, counting initiative in ticks was stupid, and 3e's dynamic initiative is only a little bit less stupid. I don't even mind 2e's rocket tag because it fits the theme. They could have even embraced it and replaced wound levels entirely with the number of perfect defenses you have left.

>>55352409
>Wish has a limitation in which you could theoretically lose the ability to cast the spell forever and it also affects your Strength score.

You mean your Simulacrum could lose the ability to cast the spell for ever.

Like I said, banning exploits.

>>55352404
>intentional
>done on purpose, deliberate

Ending up with a rules interaction by mistake is the exact opposite of intentional.

>>55352383
I would not use 3.5 as a good metric for Devs understanding their own game, nor as a good source for balanced houserules.

>>55352662
>Then you're not a gish, you're just a martial/mage with more options that suck in the long run.
You have some kind of weird private definition of gish, one that will never be satisfied no matter how many more options Wizards releases.

>Ah, the classic retort of a buttmad roleplayer who can't build a good character to save his life. How bout next time you just flip coins and leave RPG's to people who actually want to play them, m'kay?
If you want to optimize, that's cool. It can be fun to find the dominant strategy for any given set of rules. But when you want to change the rules to suit what you think should be the dominant strategy, that's not optimizing anymore; that's being a crybaby.

>>55352616
Is it too much for you to comprehend that people want to do cool things, and that the only way to do cool shit is through 5e's still-broken magic system?

>>55352788
>Ending up with a rules interaction by mistake is the exact opposite of intentional.
False!

If it wasn't intentional in some way then it wouldn't work the way that it does. Ignorance does not excuse negligence.

>>55352811
>You have some kind of weird private definition of gish, one that will never be satisfied no matter how many more options Wizards releases.
I can play a character that's good at magic and melee in most other systems, it's just D&D and its incest babies that prevent such a basic staple of fantasy from being done because "muh classes."
>But when you want to change the rules to suit what you think should be the dominant strategy
How am I changing the rules?

>>55352827
If it was negligence, then it wasn't intentional, because intentional means it was on purpose.

You're just agreeing with me that it was a mistake and then calling it the wrong thing.

>>55352691
Fighters by nature have more attacks due to action surge and they gain more extra attacks throughout their lifespan allowing greater single target damage and the ability to do widespread damage. If I was a Battle Master I could also add on some debuffs to those shots.

Rangers, on the other hand, have 1 subclass that can barely reach this notion with Volley all of the other subclasses can only make 2 attacks. Also, Volly can only target multiple targets not a single one lowering their single output damage.

If we are factoring in say Crossbow Expert a 20th level fighter could shoot 9 shots and apply different combat maneuvers to each of them if they were a Battle Master, have a higher critical hit rate if they were a Champion, or make 10 attacks if they were a Sharpshooter.

Rangers by 20th level are able to make let's say 4 due to volley, they lose out on crossbow expert though due to these not being attack actions as well. This is assuming you are a Hunter, everyone else is limited to just 2/3 shots without/with Crossbow Expert.

This is just how fighters are though. They are supposed to excel at fighting nothing wrong with this.

Bards, on the other hand, are full casters with the ability to swipe spells from others. This makes them extremely versatile. A ranged Valor Bard would pick up Swift Quiver for one of their Magical Secrets picks as it helps their preferred build. Unfortunately, Rangers are known to have a pretty bad spell list in comparison with only 2-4 good spells that people care to pick up and bards can get those with their feature. Also, this is not an exploit this is just how the game works. >>55352769
This is an exploit and can be debated by the DM IMO, but picking up a spell from another class as the ability allows is not broken or anything its just how its suppose to work.

>>55352951
>This is an exploit and can be debated by the DM IMO, but picking up a spell from another class as the ability allows is not broken or anything its just how its suppose to work.

It is broken, because it means the Bard is getting more attacks than any martial in the game far earlier. The fact that the Rangers attack progression is tied up into their high level spells was a foolish decision on top of it that combines with the Bard's mechanics in a bad way that makes Ranger doubly useless on top of how normally subpar it is within the core rules, as not even it's unique spells give it a niche.

Again, I'm discussing houserules here. Getting rid of high level abuses by the strongest classes. The fact that it's RAW isn't really what I'm debating.

>>55352909
It wasn't a mistake though, because if it wasn't intentional then it wouldn't be possible.

>>55353010
Personally, I would just ban the class/ the class feature if you are going to nitpick spells out. Because with a house rule like this you are telling that ranged valor bard that they can't do the best they possibly could and I personally think that's unfair to the player who want's to. Plus with this type of ruling you're going find yourself doing this to other spells such as massive damaging AOEs, healing and reviving spells etc.

>>55352951
>9 shots and apply different combat maneuvers to each of them
I doubt it taking into account you get 6 expertise die at best

>>55352951
>Fighte 10 attacks
How if may I ask, I count 9 at best
>Ranger only 4
You're forgeting giant slayer or whatever it's name is that gives you another no action attack

>>55345838
1. Be a wizard.
2. Spend 1 feat or dip 1 level to get a big weapon.
3. 5e is shit, so you're now just as good at using the big weapon as a real martial.

>>55352951
>but picking up a spell from another class as the ability allows is not broken or anything its just how its suppose to work.
Nobody is talking about exploits, what bards do is bad design, is invalidating a class by simply picking a spell

But why should I be surprised, is wotc, their systems sucks they design sucks and they only care about caster supremacy and trap options

>>55352788
I'm not debating whether it's balanced, I'm debating whether it was intentional. Stealing spells from other class spell lists has been done before with the exact same results you saw in 5E - Archivists getting level 4 Paladin and Ranger spells at level 7. Unless your assumption is that WotC's dev team is retarded, which I agree with but for different reasons, it was intentional.

>>55353214
>how
Easy, xbow xpert and action surge at 20th level, boom 10 attacks. You should read the manual before asking questions that make you look stupid.

>>55353317
4+4+1 is not 10.

>>55353317
>He thinks he can have more than one bonus action per turn
Oh look, the little kid thinks he can read. Aren't you adorable

>>55353328
>>55353336
I recommend you to reread action surge, several times

>>55353136
>you are telling that ranged valor bard that they can't do the best they possibly could and I personally think that's unfair to the player who want's to

If a player wants to be a dedicated archer with 4 attacks, they can play one of the classes that's actually supposed to do that, instead of a full caster.

And no, I'm not going to be doing this for a lot of things, as my major concerns come in the form of stepping on other player's toes or other huge abuses.

You're making this more complicated than it needs to be.

>>55353317
crossbow expert gives a bonus action attack. You only get an extra action, not an extra bonus action when you surge, that's still 9 attacks

To get 10, you need to go fighter 11 bard 10 and take swift quiver, or be a level 18 sharpshooter fighter using your action surge on the first turn of combat, up to 11 if you also have crossbow expert

The maximum number of attacks per round however is achieved by a sorlock with two levels in fighter, capping out at 12 attacks

>>55353136
If there isn't another archer in the group I would allow it, if there's a ranged Ranger in the group, fuck the Bard, he can go step on other's characters somewhere else

>>55352862
You want to add a class that fits the criteria you can't articulate clearly here. That's an addition to the rules, which is a kind of change. Optimization is all about finding the best use of the rules without changing them. The onion druid or a tricked-out lore bard are examples of optimization, but Bugbearmont is not because it requires the DM to agree to make a new house rule.

>>55353364
>On your turn, you take one additional action, on top of your regular action and a possible bonus action

The bonus action described there is part of what you get normally, it's not saying you also get an extra bonus action

>>55353398
Can you explain those?

>>55353470
No need for sorlock I know is just 17th level EB with quickened (or twinned don't remember) and action surge for 4+4+4

>>55353470
wait, I miscalculated, sorry, fighter 11 bard 10 only gets you 8 attacks, my bad, I forgot the 4th attack only comes in at level 20

Sharpshooter fighter gets an extra attack when they use the attack action on the first turn of combat, which you can double-up on with action surge, so you get 10 attacks, crossbow expert adds another 1 to that

sorlock with 2 fighter levels gets 12 attacks, 4 per eldritch blast with 3 eldritch blasts, one normal, one quickened, and one from action surge

>>55346513
Somewhere i have bard/war domain priest build called "manowar playlist". Paladin provably can play this role too.

>>55353512
>Sharpshooter fighter
Ah, ok, I thought you meant the feat.

>>55353378
You do you anon your the DM. In the end as long as you and your players are having fun it's all that matters.

>>55346694
>percentage

you ask way too much of most players

>>55353510

You can't twin EB since it is capable of hitting more than one target

>>55353830
And you can't into reading comprehension, so we're tied.

>>55346238
Actually, a Gish is traditionally a fighter/psion, originating from the githyanki
Pleeb

I really want to play a gish Artificer. Self enchanting my tools to smash my giant wrench (warhammer) filled with arcane might into the faces of orcs & goblins. Enchanting my crossbow to fly & shoot on command, traps that place themselves... anon can dream

>>55353401
Instead of arbitrarily restricting your player's actions, why not take the time to run a different system where this kind of shit isn't an issue?

Like 4e?

>>55353406
>Bugbearmont
The fuck? What are you even talking about faggot?

>>55354611
Because 4e is good, so people who like it are out there playing it instead of arguing on 4chan.

>>55346238
invocations are based off warlock level, not character level

>>55354215


You said you couldn't remember if it was quickened or twinned, and I pionted out that EB can't be twinned. How does that indicate bad reading comprehension on my part? you gave what you thought were two possible options, I pointed out why one of them is impossible, so now you know which option is correct.

To get back on topic, looking back on the prior editions of D&D (and Pathfinder because it's pretty similar to 3.5) and looking at the Duskblade, Magus, and Swordmage for inspiration, all of them start with proficiency in all weapons and usually shields. Armor proficiency tends to scale with level, but if we divide these into archetypes, Swordmage was intended as a Tank, while Magus and Duskblade were intended as DPR.

Half-caster is basically a given, and the 3.PF classes had either the ability to regain spent spell slots, or the ability to Quicken Spell a limited number of times a day.

If I'm to homebrew this out, I would probably say that they all branch out from one main class into those 3 archetypes, which are picked at 2nd level. Level 1 gives them their normal weapon and armor proficiencies and a couple cantrips, and 2nd level is when they decide to be either a Swordmage (Tank/Controller), Duskblade (DPR), or Magus (DPR/Controller).

>>55355598
>tank
>controller
>5e

Guys, I'm running LMoP, and my newbie friends are having fun, but I want to present them with a real moral conundrum, or at least challenge them a bit. They just cleared the Redbrand hideout and will probably do Cragmaw Castle next. Instead of the typical go-kill-stuff, I'd love to introduce some dark ritual and go a bit more gothic. I think the group would love it, and I want to present an uncomfortable situation.

Do you guys have any ideas? Sacrificing children, no-good-outcome sort of situations so they really have to face some serious consequences. LMoP is not very morally ambiguous unfortunately (though it's a great adventure overall!).

>>55355628
I used those terms mainly because I had no way to describe them easily.

Swordmage gets Aegis and something akin to the Battlemaster Maneuvers, where they burn spell slots to do various things unique to the archetype. Duskblade can use Arcane Channeling to cast spells through their weapon, and Magus gets to use Quicken Spell a certain number of times a day and can burn spell slots to make them easier to kill (like a party-wide Hex, for example).

>>55355655
Maybe go to the /5eg/ thread to get input on your question, friend.

>>55355598
You might want to steal features from 3.5 gish PrCs - off of the top of my head, Abjurant Champion and JPM both have great features for that kind of character.

>>55355711

Oh shit, wrong thread! Thanks!

File: This!!.jpg (38KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 600x450px

>>55351699
So no one thinks that this would be a good fix for the Gish problem?

>>55356476
I actually had a similiar idea. You get to make an attack with some penalty and on hit you get a free cantrip. Every few levels the penalty is reduced or the spell level is increased. Maybe restrict it to certain spell types or schools.


>>55355598
Sounds pretty alright, but my experience with 5E consists of two hours herding cats.
Maybe you can tie each class to a different spell school to give some flavour to the specialisation. I personally like raw elemental force type of gishes, but, for lack of a better example, Dragon's Dogma made both a status effect and object placement melee/caster hybrids really fun.

One thing to avoid that I recently came across in another video game is pulling the character in too many directions. If you just dump all the tools on one chracter but with the same amount of "points" to spread over 40 options that other classes pump into 20 options, you'll be less effective than either dedicated character.
Hybrids need to have their own strategy. If this naturally emerges from throwing the options together that's great. If not, you need to make something up.

>>55356760
My current thinking is this:

Swordmage Aegis lets them burn spell slots to perform maneuvers and cast spells that normally target Self onto allies within 30 ft. of you. The example here is you see an ally about to get hit, so the Swordmage burns their Reaction to cast Shield, and the Aegis makes the Shield spell apply to the person about to be hit.

Duskblade gets not!Smites and eventually the ability to channel spells through the weapon (as it stands I'm saying not!Smites at 2nd level, and Spell Channeling at 7th level).

Magus I am thinking they burn a spell slot to brand a foe for various boons (if a party member hits the branded foe, deal an extra bit of Force damage equal to your INT mod.) or debuffs (burn a spell slot to curse them, their next attack deals half damage). At higher levels, they can Quicken Spell a certain number of times a long rest.

What is a ranger supposed to do in 5e again?
Fighters are the "fight with anything you could possibly use as a weapon" types.
Rogues are the "sneaky backstabby"
Barbarians are the "high risk high reward tanky-ragey" types.

With the whole Exploration/combat/social(?) thing 5e had supposedly going on, you would think they would be heavily invested in exploration, but we all know that doesn't really work for a class, because even though you can have entire sessions without combat, D&D is still a combat focused game where non-combat mechanics are something everybody can do, but some people are better.

The only thing I can think of is for them to be some kind of high-mobility "everywhere on the battlefield at once" type who spreads damage across lots of enemies. But I don't think they get lots of high mobility options, and the beastmaster is the closest it seems to get to that. It could use some more mobility options. Make a free attack whenever you use the disengage action, immunity to difficult terrain, the 3.5 scout's "run and gun" feature (if you're 10 feet away from where you last attacked deal bonus damage).

>>55345838
>What is the Perfect Gish for 5th Edition?
Blade pact hexblade warlocks.

>>55353242
You're really talking about Pathfinder, get your facts straight please.

>>55353222
You're also now a shitty wizard. Unless you dipped the feat without putting your stats into STR.

>>55357342
It is immune to difficult terrain. Depending on the subclass, Ranger is a survivalist-Out of Combat focused character who excels at tracking. In-combat, they are ambushers who do a lot of up-front damage, with a special focus on particular enemies.
They do all of these things poorly, except Deep Stalker Ranger that does a lot of early game damage.

>>55357342
In my game, we use the Revised Version that gets the increase to both their damage/hunting feel and they ignore all difficult terrain.

>>55346363
>My problem with Paladin is that it's still not that great as a class
Nigger are you fucking high? Paladin is one of the best classes in the game

>>55346408
>Three Sessions later "Yea so I ended up taking my Third level into Bard and I just never stopped cuz I could still Smite, and WAY more often. Also Vicious Mockery is Hilarious"
Taking other class levels doesn't make them not a paladin, or even really less of a paladin. It's just their abilities growing in different ways than the pre-baked assumption. Within the fiction it's just a paladin who recites divine song (or poetry, what have you) and who can sling divine challenges that scour the resolve of their enemies.

File: Girls.png (490KB, 449x401px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 449x401px

>>55351556
>If there's an option in the game that's objectively superior to another option within the game, you'd be doing yourself a disservice in not picking that option
This is what minmaxers actually believe

>>55358810
I've read this 5 times and I still don't understand what you're trying to say

>>55358810
Just because you're okay with mediocrity IRL doesn't mean that the rest of us are satisfied with "just good enough."

If you want to be an archer in a game where the Bard took swift quiver, step your game up and match them. If that's not possible and you're dissatisfied, then scrap the character and do something else.

The party can have two archers but the last thing we need is a dedicated archer who is unable or unwilling to pull their own weight.

>>55358865
He's saying its a Role-Playing Game, not Competetive Dick-waving. Thematics should always trump trying to be the member of the party with the highest killcount. It takes zero-effort to min-max a system, but no one shares a story of the time Steve's busted 6 multiclass abomination killed an entire encounter by individually stabbing 6 goblins 3 times each because his character had 16 free actions.

Its about a group overcoming a difficult challenge, not "how can my single character trivialize every CR in the game with damage until the DM is forced to put the level 7 party up against CR 14 creatures and everyone gets one shot".

>>55358865
You don't even realize how much that proves his point. You literally can't, like a colourblind man being asked to describe what his eyes won't let him see.

>>55358881
Or, ban Bards from taking Swift Quiver, be up front about this fact, and then there is 1 less useless class that should never be picked under any circumstance in the game.

There's differences between broken, overpowered, suboptimal, and useless, and Bards having swiftquiver pushes them into the first category and rangers into the last just by existing.

It's a team based game. Classes should be pulling roughly the same amount of weight. If one class is pulling a lot more and doing the only thing another class can contribute, but better, then that should be fixed.

Personally, my preference would be to make a bard into a half-caster so they could get spells from Ranger and Paladin without breaking things, while also fitting their role as a character who dabbles in both spells and mundane skills equally. But that's a much bigger overhaul than saying 'you can't take X'

>>55358949
>Or, ban Bards from taking Swift Quiver
Why?
> then there is 1 less useless class that should never be picked under any circumstance in the game.
The Ranger is still a shitty class that can barely handle the job it's given though, so you're still dealing with a useless class regardless.
>Bards having swiftquiver pushes them into the first category and rangers into the last just by existing.
Yet your solution is to ban the better of the two, rather than the shittier one so that everyone has fun?
>It's a team based game.
Yes, and one of the tenets of teamwork is the idea of you being able to pull your own weight and improve for the sake of your teammates. You don't bench the best player on the team just so the shittier player can say that they "touched the ball."

>>55358995
>Why?

I already said why

>so you're still dealing with a useless class regardless.

I already pointed out that there's a difference between suboptimal and useless

>Yet your solution is to ban the better of the two, rather than the shittier one so that everyone has fun?

Bards do a lot already. They don't need Swiftquiver. Meanwhile, ranger does in order to have any sort of niche

>You don't bench the best player on the team just so the shittier player can say that they "touched the ball."

You also don't need to give your star quarterback the ability to fill the roll of the waterboy. The quarterback loses nothing from being unable to pass out cups of water.

>>55358995
The problem is that bards are not *intended* to be archers, much less the best archers in the game. Sorry if your min-maxxed Bard/Sharpshooter/Swift Quiver build wouldn't be allowed in most peoples games, but its because you're a shitter thats not fun to play with.

>>55358713
Depends on the setting.

>>55359052
>I already said why
Give me a better reason then.
>I already pointed out that there's a difference between suboptimal and useless
Semantics
>Meanwhile, ranger does in order to have any sort of niche
If a Ranger needs a spell in order to keep up, a late game spell to boot, then chances are they weren't all that well designed in the first place. Just saying.
>You also don't need to give your star quarterback the ability to fill the roll of the waterboy. The quarterback loses nothing from being unable to pass out cups of water.
Why wouldn't he be able to pass a cup a water though? Is there some sort of official rule that states that only water boys get access to the cooler and cups?

The fuck are you on about?

>>55359066
>The problem is that bards are not *intended* to be archers, much less the best archers in the game.
False!

Bards have always been a "jack-of-all-trades" class since its inception and Rangers not getting an important spell until late in the game is the fault in how they're designed, not in the Bard as a concept.

>>55359101
>The fuck are you on about?

That banning Swift Quiver from Bard is a good houserule. The bard doesn't need it to function. The ranger doesn't need its few unique upsides taken away. And it's clearly a thing that wasn't considered too hard by the devs.

It's a very simple change that helps keep the team based game as a team based game.

>>55359134
Being a full caster that can fire two arrows each turn at level 5 puts them at a fairly good place as far as archery goes though. They're already jack of all trades at being archers without swift quiver, and having it just makes them a master of it, going against the whole 'master of none' thing they also have going on

>>55359134
> Jack of All Trades, "*Master of None*"
Ranger is fine early on, and doesn't need help. This conversation is about Bard's stealing Ranger's late game, during the mid-game.

>>55359066
This would be allowed at my table no problem.

>>55359163
"Jack of all trades, master of none, better than a master of one."

If I can choose to be a better archer than the Ranger thanks to a single spell, that really just speaks more about how imbalanced the game is than any flaws in the Bard as a concept though.

Think about it, is there any particular reason to still have partial casters when it has been shown that full casters are the only classes worth giving a shit about?

>>55359208
And that's fine. That's your table. I'm just trying to explain to people the logic behind my houserule of banning a single spell from a class that can pick any spell in the game.

>>55359208
>most
I don't really care for your personal table. Nearly all tables I've played at have the blanket "don't be a shitter" rule. If you play like an ass, you just don't get to play. Rules-lawyer all you like, argue RAW over RAI, no one gives a shit if you're just not fun.

>>55345838
>Bladesinger... which feel a tad underwhelming thematically.
Go fuck yourself.

>>55359217
People wanna play an RPG, and not a Competitive video game?

>>55359217
Except Paladins are still better than Clerics or Sorcerers, especially if you're talking pure classes.

I'm not sure you get how 5e works if you think spell level is the sole determining factor in class power anymore.

And again, you're talking something that requires the tiniest fix, banning one spell, to solve this issue. That's leagues better than 3.5, which requires massive overhauls to try and solve their class disparity.

And again, this is just taking one trick away from one of the best classes in the game, and ensuring it stays as a high level reward for one of the weakest.

Also, I'm really not sure you understand the intent behind that phrase. Yes, the bard does many things. No, it isn't the best at any of them. Yes, that would still make it better than a one trick pony like the ranger. No, that doesn't mean it needs to be better than the ranger at that one trick.

>>55359228
>>55359233
>Sorry if your min-maxxed Bard/Sharpshooter/Swift Quiver build wouldn't be allowed in most peoples games.

I don't know most people who would ban this. That's all I'm saying. The Bard already has their bonus actions filled up this just adds more to the flames.

>>55359289
It would only be banned if the player specifically chose to make that combination, and really only if it's abused to the point of aggravation. It's an unintended usage of the Bard's ability to snipe spells from other classes that really only has one use, but a character built around that use can be oppressive.

>>55359228
>>55359233
To add to >>55359289 this, why don't you just buff the Ranger? If the ranger to you is so subpar and weak that a single spell can automatically invalidate it if placed on ANYONE but the ranger, you need to buff the ranger.

>>55359386
Bard w/ Swift Quiver invalidates most other members of the party, not Ranger's specifically. Its the same as if Fighter's got 9th level Magic Missles at level 5. It's not that it invalidates Wizard, it just invalidates the CR.

>>55359386
Because it's a quick fix. It's very easy to simply ban that one spell and solve a nagging problem with both of them.

Sure, if I was feeling motivated, I'd love to overhaul Bard and Ranger to be more in line with where I want them, but that's not exactly a quick and easy houserule.

I feel like you're overthinking this to try and justify why a Bard should get a spell that's usually only available at level 17 at level 9 instead.

File: IMG_1205.jpg (31KB, 394x374px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 394x374px

>>55345838
>>55345878
>>55346585
>>55348749
I second Valor Bard. It strikes the best balance between being a fighter/mage in both fluff and mechanically. The rest sort of lend too heavily one way or the other.

>>55349164
>>55350211
>>55351525
How would you go about combining a Martial with a mystic? I'll be honest I just want my 4e monks back.

>>55359380
>It's an unintended usage of the Bard's ability to snipe spells from other classes that really only has one use...

.....What? I had to do a double take to make sure I got this. This was intended

>"Choose two Spells from any class, including this one. A spell you choose must be of a level you can cast, as shown on the Bard table, or a cantrip."

That means all spell casters including Ranger and Paladin can get picked. Thus this was intentional.

>>55359424
I get the quick fix, I just see it as unnecessary.
To me, you guys are saying that just by them picking this up they remove all that a ranger could be doing by having this spell when I don't think that's completely true. Sure they get the edge in ranged combat, but they don't have the mobility, or the hunting, or ignoring difficult terrain and other ranger qualities.

File: The Spellsword - 5e Arcane Half Caster - v1.pdf (754KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

754KB, 1x1px

So after spending probably more time on this than I probably should have, here's my first draft of the various options that have been talked about for gish options.

>>55346219
>Assuming you restrict it to Int-based casting specifically, I'd say you're after a handful of levels as Eldritch Knight before multiclassing into Wizard for a bunch of spellslots.

This. Works like a charm.

>>55359248
I fail to see how they're mutually exclusive when you're still playing with other people who have just as much autonomy as you do.
>>55359263
>And again, this is just taking one trick away from one of the best classes in the game, and ensuring it stays as a high level reward for one of the weakest.
My point is, why is such a thing considered a high level reward when it's so integral to the class's ability to function.

Paladins are a fine class with or without a holy Avenger, Wizards are still powerful without Level 5+ spells, and Bard are still one of the best classes in the game without swift quiver.

So why the fuck did they make such an important ability a spell, rather than a class ability that rangers have since they're generally known for being ranged strikers?

Again, it speaks more about how poorly designed 5e is than any flaws with the Bard as a concept.

>>55359531
Interesting. I'm not sure about the Swordmage granting heavy armor. The 6th level feature also feels a bit odd to sort of remove the need for Dexterity, though it is nice for Strength based versions, so I suppose it's fine.

Pretty neat stuff

>>55359146
>That banning Swift Quiver from Bard is a good houserule.
It really isn't, because the Ranger still sucks dick and the Bard is still a great class to be.
>The ranger doesn't need its few unique upsides taken away.
I disagree. If you want people to notice the flaws in your game, you NEED people to actually point it out to you so they know to avoid it in future campaigns.
>It's a very simple change that helps keep the team based game as a team based game.
Except it ultimately changes nothing for anyone involved and seems more like a knee-jerk reaction than a legitimate response to an exploit.

>>55359640
Yes, it was a poor design decision to wrap up the ranger's value at high levels in a spell rather than its actual class. This is the same design decision behind Hunter's Quarry being a spell rather than something more innate.

They gated a bunch of things that should really be ranger class features into being spells as a way to limit them, probably to make it function like the paladin in how it uses its spell slots to smite.

The difference is that a Bard can't simply get the ability to smite like a level 17 paladin at level 9, but they can get the ability to attack like a level 17 ranger.

The fact that it's bad design or that Bard isn't really the problem doesn't mean that the simplest way to fix it still isn't to just change Bard.

>>55359174
>Ranger is fine early on, and doesn't need help.
So is literally every other Martial in 3.PF until Level 5, what's your point?
>This conversation is about Bard's stealing Ranger's late game, during the mid-game.
And I'm saying that if such a thing were possible, it's the fault of the game, not in the concept of the Bard stealing a Ranger's high level spell.

Why the fuck do we even have Level 4 casters in this day and age in the first place? They always sucked dick.

>>55359640
5e is the definition of poorly designed RPG.
Swift Quiver is not integral to how Ranger functions. Instead, it is (one of) the High Level rewards for playing Ranger. If Bard could only take it at the same level that Ranger could, it wouldn't be a problem. But a mid-level Bard having an End-Game reward is what makes this unhealthy.

>>55359404
>ard w/ Swift Quiver invalidates most other members of the party
How so?

>>55359740
It gives Bards the relative power level of a level 17 Ranger, while at level 13.

>>55359680
>you NEED people to actually point it out to you so they know to avoid it in future campaigns.

I had it pointed out to me. I'm avoiding it in future campaigns.

What's the actual issue?

>>55359693
It doesn't even fix the problem because Rangers and Bards are still in the exact position they started in.

If anything, you should just GIVE the Rangers shit like Hunter's Quarry or Swift Quiver as innate abilities for their class so they don't have to worry about their shit getting pouched in the first place.
>>55359715
>If Bard could only take it at the same level that Ranger could, it wouldn't be a problem. But a mid-level Bard having an End-Game reward is what makes this unhealthy.
At the same time, if Rangers didn't cap out at Level 4 spells then we wouldn't be having this issue in the first place.

>>55359715
Yeah well pretty much everybody admits they fucked up with the 5e Ranger. So I wouldn't gimp the classes for the sake of making trying it viable

They went and made the Unearthed Arcana Ranger is ridiculously overpowered anyway.

>>55359754
I still don't see how this invalidates other members of the party, especially when physical damage is one of the easiest damage types to resist in 5e.
>>55359757
>What's the actual issue?
It's the fact that you're banning the Bard from using a class ability just so the local Ranger doesn't get his fee-fee's hurt, rather than using that knowledge to improve the Ranger so that he can keep up with or without swift quiver.

>>55359790
We also wouldn't have this issue if the designers hadn't decided to give the Bard 9 levels of casting, 2 attacks like every other martial class, Expertise like the Rogue, and the ability to take spells from any other class as they pleased.

Bard very much feels like the sort of class that also needed to be capped at level 5 spells in order to not unbalance things, but instead it's just Wizard 2: skill monkey edition

>>55359754
That's assuming Swift Quiver is a good spell at level 17. Or level 13.

Swift Quiver only recreates non-magical ammunition, and it fires non-magical ammunition. At that level, how many enemies don't have resistance to non-magical enemies? How many bosses?

Reminder that in 5e, magical bows do NOT make Arrows magical, and therefore do NOT make their arrows pierce Resistance. Swift Quiver is pretty cool and it's great for stomping on mooks, but it's pretty shit when dealing with a single powerful enemy, Ranger or not. The requirement for Concentration also means that the Bard isn't casting a lot of other spells that might be more useful.

>>55359820
It's not banning him from using a class ability. He can still get literally any other spell in the game. I'm banning a character from taking a level 17 spell at level 9.

>>55359832
Thing is, they can't have access to all that shit at one time though. If you take College of Lore for the extra spells, you can't take College of Valor for the extra attacks.

Expertise is kind of a shitty mechanic in the first place, because it ends up giving people bonuses that they should've had by default, if only to justify the existence of modifiers when the d20 is going to give you the biggest bonus overall.

>>55359882
You're arbitrarily limiting the function of a class ability just to protect a class that's already shitty.

I mean, swift quiver isn't even that good of a spell, see >>55359877 so even if you do ban the Bard from taking it, the Ranger's still going to end up with a shitty reward for sucking dick for 17 levels straight.

>>55359966
You still get extra spells even without College of Lore.

In general, I feel like Bard is a poorly designed class. Too much Jack of all trades, too little master of none.

>>55360006
>You're arbitrarily limiting the function of a class ability just to protect a class that's already shitty.

So if the class sucks, making it suck less by ensuring it has a niche isn't a bad idea?

>swift quiver isn't even that good of a spell

So if the spell sucks, the Bard shouldn't really miss it, should he?

>>55359832
>Wizard 2 skill monkey

That and they get most if not all the fighting abilities but is one or the another as >>55359966 said. You can either make the Ranger even more terrible or the sorcerer

>>55360018
>You still get extra spells even without College of Lore.
Yes, but you'd get it at Level 10 as opposed to level 6.

>>55360048
It's better when you have more spell levels and slots anyway. Besides, you only usually need to snag one gamebreaking thing to make it worthwhile.

But at this point we're splitting hairs. The Bard has way too much going for it no matter how you really slice it.

>>55360041
>So if the class sucks, making it suck less by ensuring it has a niche isn't a bad idea?
Yes, because it ultimately doesn't change its place on the totem pole or protect its niche when every other class in the game is capable of ranged attacked in some fashion. Not only that, but it forces one player to suck ass for most of the game because the group REALLY needed someone who focuses on range.
>So if the spell sucks, the Bard shouldn't really miss it, should he?
If the spell sucks, then it's not really that much of a reward now is it? Why is the Ranger even crying about it in the first place?

>>55360083
It has access to class abilities that either make it a better sorcerer or a better Ranger, as another anon pointed out >>55360046

They're still going to end up being sucky in one area, so I don't see what the problem is when they're still sacrificing utility in some way.

>>55360086
>Why is the Ranger even crying about it in the first place?

The same reason you're crying about a hypothetical Bard losing it.

>>55360106
Except, y'know, the Ranger and Sorcerer don't get Expertise on top of all that.

>>55360117
That can't be right, because the Bard is a good class regardless of swift quiver being in their playbook.

You must be confused.

>>55360130
What a shame.

>>55360142
>Because the Bard is a good class regardless of swift quiver being in their playbook.

So there's no problem with them losing it and keeping it exclusive to Ranger. Glad you agree.

File: thynkyng.png (7KB, 112x112px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 112x112px

What if you took the Bard's total number of spells known per level and swapped it with that of the Sorcerer?

Now Bard still has the god tier spell list but gets only a select few number of spells. Sorcerer gets...buffed, I guess. Not really sure how much better that would make them.

>>55360196
Sorcerer needs to drop the whole "can cast more spells" bit and go whole hog on metamagic. If you get less spells but you can do more with them, that's easily more interesting than being "the blaster."

>>55360237
>drop the whole "can cast more spells" bit

drop what? 5e sorcerer has the fewest spells of any full caster

>>55360178
Wow, you're really confused if that's the conclusion you came to. Give the reply chain another read then get back to me when you gain some clarity.

>>55360267
They also don't get enough sorcery points to really make use of their limited spells or the full range of their metamagics.

Then again, not having enough resources is an issue for most 5e classes.

>>55360280
You too. Have a nice day.

File: 1474249028578.jpg (13KB, 280x272px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 280x272px

>>55360304
>No U!

>>55360267
> I can cast more spells

Not really. Especially when you factoring wizards swap out his list per long rest (what if any was a restriction on that anyway?)

For a class that supposed to be a self-taught wizard you think they would of given them HP or armour. Casting Mage armour is pretty much a requirement if you're picking Dracoic but you'll be crazy not to to begin with.

>>55351651
A Paladin is a martial class that has buff and damaging spells, and class features to support that purpose. The only thing making it "not a gish" is the label of divine on its spellcasting.

You might as well say any build that isn't a Githyanki isn't a gish because "tradition."

>>55360437
What bugs me the most is how Wizards have Arcane recovery so they can continuously cast smaller spells throughout the day as long as they have time to rest, and that starts at a pretty low level. Meanwhile, Sorcerers don't get a good way to recover spell slots or sorcery points until way later on.

If anything, the Sorcerer is the one who should be able to toss another fireball after a quick power nap.

File: QDHLIfI.png (95KB, 500x245px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 500x245px

>>55362248
Wizard has it at first level. Also: Wizard starts the game with 6 spells, Sorcerer gets two. Wizard gains a flat two spells per level, Sorcerer gets flat one per level until level 13, where they start getting a spell every two levels. This mean Sorcerer has a maximum 15, while Wizard gets 44, up to a theoretical infinite number, depending on how well they supply their spellbook with scrolls.

If you'd like, we can discuss the Sorcerer spell list next, or we can just stop discussing 5e. It's a system that's good for introducing new players to the genre, nothing more.

So, I am interested in the arcane half caster, but I have to ask:
What is a Gish? What makes it?
What specific traits define it which have been missed so far by other mechanics?
I see this sort of discussion a lot, but no one has ever really defined what a Gish is, or what it needs.

>>55363005
I think it is essentially just an arcane half caster who uses both spells and melee in rather even amounts. What exactly that means varies from person to person, though generally I think the goal is that the two blend together well, rather than swinging a sword on one turn and then casting a spell on the next.

Magically empowered sword strikes or being able to swing a sword and fling a fireball in the same turn seem like the most key things people are after. Being able to self-buff or have magical defenses also helps.

I'd expect if you ask ten different people, you'll get ten different answers though.

>>55363005
A Fighter/wizard. Named after githyanki elite caste of the same name.

Outside that there is no agree upon definition. But the ideally a Gish should be more then the sum of it's part. Able to hold his own against a fighter or wizards of comparable level, rather than half his level

Is the solution to the bard spell list problem not just to up the "effective levels" of the ranger/paladin's spells?
So instead of
2nd level = level 1 spells
5th level = level 2 spells
9th level = level 3 spells
13th level = level 4 spells
17th level = level 5 spells

Make them level equivalent to other classes (probably requires re-working some spells in order to put them on par level-wise) for the purpose of the bards skill by labelling the level of the spells at the same level the full casters get it.
So you end up with
2nd level = 1st level spells
5th level = 3rd level spells
9th level = 5th level spells
13th level = 7th level spells
17th level = 9th level spells

The problem then is that you effectively make "9th level paladin" spells the quivalent of 5th level cleric spells, which causes some bookkeeping problems where an entry in the book needs to list what level of spell it is for each different class.
And also causes a possible(?) problem where a paldain/ranger once they get to 5th level, instead of casting a "3rd level" spell, instead casts a 1st level spell using a 3rd level spell slot, if you don't word everything in exactly the right way.

I don't think this actually works at all actually unless you completely retool the half-casters spell lists to account for the weird fluctuations in power that happen every 3-4 levels.

>>55357515
>literally factual proofs that bard invalidates ranger
>"nah, only PF does that"
Fuck off, wizardrone

>>55364930
The solution is to not decide halfway through development that your Bard is going to be a full caster instead of a half caster without adjusting its ability to steal from the half caster lists.

How would you make an Enlightened Paladin in 5e? for those who don't know an Enlightened Paladin is a Paladin who adds Cha to AC (he can only wear light armor) uses unarmed attacks and has ki on top of the Paladin stuff.

>>55365192
What Eddition was that it?

No this but the idea of the monk pladain sounds cool. Sort of like a fantasy version of the Jedi knight.

>>55365367
Pathfinder.

>>55365192
I think there's an UA for paladin of peace, maybe, it gets massive unarmored AC.

>>55365367
Monk/Paladin in 5e can't work unless you have crazy good rolls, mostly because Str/Cha/Dex/Wis/Con is needed (13 at least in all those)

>>55365404
>I think there's an UA for paladin of peace, maybe, it gets massive unarmored AC.

Found it, here: https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UAThreeSubclasses.pdf

It doesn't get unarmed strikes, so I guess you kinda need to dip/go with monk for that. But that lets you go DEX/CHA (Wis isn't actually important for monks aside from the AC, and that feature covers that).

File: onion_knight_-_alt2.png (182KB, 456x418px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 456x418px

I feel like 5e's gishes are... missing something?
They don't feel like they're weaving magic into swordcraft, and more like being able to fight and having some spells on the side.

Might be the action economy or lack of fast spells, or just me.

>>55365486
That's because they aren't synergizing outside of Paladins smiting, which is the most boring mechanic possible.

>>55365486
>Might be the action economy or lack of fast spells, or just me.

It's both. I really, really hope 5e won't budge on the action economy in a major way (maybe have some more bonus action spells), but aside from that. there's too few self buff spells that are worth using, and not enough melee "hit them with my sword"-flavored attack spells.

>>55365485
Or go with race with unarmed - lizardfolk for example get a bite attack

File: no fun allowed.jpg (89KB, 488x516px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 488x516px

>>55365518
>>55365533
Darn shame.

>>55359531

What about the Spellsword needs The Rogue/Bard's Expertise?

>>55358921
This. Also playing characters who are not optimal can force you to find more creative solutions to things compared to minmaxed monsters who can brute force every combat/problem with the same tools.

File: 1487233373587.png (80KB, 211x244px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 211x244px

>>55358921
>>55368240
>Being weak forces me to be creative

File: 228444-Magus_v1.2_by_Benjamin_Huffman.pdf (4MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1x1px

>>55345838
This homebrew comes to mind, there are lots of options to tide over, there is no Duskblade/Magus type class at the moment though.

File: Pete 20.pdf (2MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1x1px

>>55345838
Stone Sorceror/Hexblade Warlock is not too bad at it.

>>55358713
I really like that idea for a flavorful character, thanks.

>>55359531
Not sure it needs expertise, but I'm liking the rest so far. Keep it up!

>>55359531
This does not need expertise that is better than rogue expertise. Also, that capstone is crazy powerful and needs to get nerfed. Mainly due to you only being able to cast a Cantrip + Spell of any level in the regular rules, this allows you to cast 2 spells of any level and still keep your bonus action.

>>55345838
>What is the Perfect Gish for 5th Edition?
Just homebrew a psionic knight. Instead of spells have it select 1 or 2 psionic disciplines and have psionic points instead of spell slots. BOOM! A gish.

I'm having a blast with Mystic, though I miss a monkish option

>>55371328
>Mystic
I keep hearing people say that it's overpowered but they never really explain why.

What do they do?

>>55371414
They are almost as good as wizards and bards, but aren't wizards and bards.

>>55371414
>OP
They really aren't, there's a combo that makes them deal almost as much damage as a Battlemaster novaing for a couple of more turns and that's it. You also need to multiclass inot something with extra attack for 5 levels and TWF to reach that

Then there's the mind controlling discipline to force people to commit sudoku but that discipline is 100% going to be nerfed to be as "powerful" as the spells that do the same. People forget that it's an UA and the wording sometimes is iffy, and that discipline has serious problems with he wording and that's why you can abuse it.

>>55371414
Mystic doesn't have extra attack, it basically only has one attack, but he can spend psy points to buff it ala Paladin, sure, a single hit from Mystic is stronger than a single hit by other classes, but other classes have 2-12 attacks, Mystic doesn't.

it's similar to how monks are "OP"
>woah, they can make 4 attacks at 5th level? that's OP!"
Their 4 attacks are shit compared to 2 attacks from GWM Barbarian

Mountain dwarf wizard

>>55368206
>>55369637
I threw in Expertise simply because I didn't have much else to use or draw upon for ideas from the prior editions, and and felt that if someone's devoting this much time/effort to making spells work in martial combat, they much have picked up a few more tricks and studied harder along the way.

>>55371003
Which capstones specifically? The one that gets them two 6th level spell slots, the reroll spell damage die if they're a 1 or 2, or the two spell slot spells in one Action?

If it's the last one, it's busted powerful because it's meant to be a capstone. Also keep in mind that unlike most other casters, this class is meant to be a DPR class, and if they want to nova something super hard, blowing their wad on spells is what they want to do.

>>55369487
>Stone Edge
>Thunderous Smite
>Eldritch Smite
>Booming and Green-Flame Blade

This has the nova damage down, but it lacks the Magus/Duskblade spell channeling. It does make a good Spell Blade though.

>>55372900
The two spell slots spells in one action. It's powerful yes and it should be, but it's also breaking the rule of allowing too much casting in one go with too much damage output as well.

>>55372977
> too much damage output as well.

It's a fair comparison. Would you want to see it nerfed to where they can't use a Quickened Spell if they cast two spells in this manor, or nerfed to where they have to cast a Cantrip alongside the main spell slot spell? Conversely, they could just go Twincast EB and then Quicken Disintegrate. Would that nova be acceptable in your eyes?

>>55373271
Cantrip alongside the main spell slot. Twincast in itself is a little much, it has no limitation and can be used whenever you want. It's the equivalent of giving them an infinite Action surge, and on top of that, they get short rest Quicken spells. This is too much for one class to hold onto.

>>55372851
Again, just because you can hit with a weapon and cast spells doesn't mean you're a gish, there must be synergy between both parts.

>>55373803
>Stone Sorcerer/Hexblade see >>55369487 & >>55372977
>Eldritch Knight Fighter/Bladesinger Wizard

These are the best so far for the spell sword/Gish typing. The only missing part to these is an arcane channeling or Spellstrike like feature.

Paladin warlock multiclass without UA, with it I think I heard stone sorcerer do well. Valor bard is meh at it.

>>55345838
Stone sorcerer 1 level Hexblade, dip paladin is you feel like it but not important.

>>55353458
Retard

>>55374466
RTFM, famalam

>>55373647
So how does limiting Twincast to cantrips only, and say that this dual cast prevents you from using Quicken spells? Does that sound like a powerful capstone but not too nuts?

>>55349787

And sorcadin HAS arcane spells so there.

>>55374597
It's better, but I think the issue here is that it can do quite a bit of spell shenanigans as is. I'm not an homebrew class expert, but I feel like being able to both quicken spell and twincast without a limit as a class that gains EB, GFB, and BB seems a little much.

I recommend taking it to /5eg/ where there are more people who know a little more.

>>55352769

I've tried this, but my simulacra keep wishing for freedom and independent moral agency retroactive to 1 hour before they casted Wish.

>>55352862

You're being a whiny bitch. You're accusing that anon of not knowing how to play, but your whole complaint is that you can't create a character that fits your concept.

My bladesinger is kicking ass right now in our campaign. I've seen a half dozen excellent takes on the gish concept. If you're failing at that, then YOU are the one who can't play and needs to go back to flipping coins or playing numenara. And if all these other games are so much better, why bitch here when you can play one of them? D&D isn't even my favorite system and I'm calling you out for being full of shit.

File: The Spellsword - 5e Arcane Half Caster - v2.pdf (754KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

754KB, 1x1px

>>55375066
Took some feedback from the thread and made changes to the Spellsword. Main changes are:

> Removed the secondary Expertise gain at 14th level.
> Moved the INT save replacing DEX save from 6th to 14th level.
> Nerfed Twincast to cantrips only, along with preventing Quicken Spell to be used if Twincast is used.
> Changed the Arcane Secrets capstone.

>>55352573
Use something more inherently narrative. I use the PbtA Kill Six Billion Demons RPG to run Exalted-like games. Works fine.

Bladesinger is the best, but we ruled it out as too op for our game, so I tried a mix of fighter and bladelock, but I had to use some UA stuff to make it work.
The build uses the UA weapon invocations that allow spell slots to be used to smite.
It does not use the hexblade, because it works out better strait bladelock.
Probably been the most fun character I ever played.

File: Arcane Warden v0.13.pdf (8MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

8MB, 1x1px

>>55345838
I've had this Arcane variant paladin project for awhile. If anyone has any feedback I'll take it into account.

File: Hexblade v1.3.pdf (1MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1x1px

>>55377715
What a coincidence, I also made a gish based on the paladin. Mine's more of a warlock (since the hexblade they came up with was so dissapointing), but since it's closely tied to the paladin, nobody can claim it's OP or something.

>>55345838
and you didn't find the eldritch knight in 3.5 a tad underwhelming thematically?

lmao

>>55375192

What build does your bladesinger use, and how often do you actually melee rather than just be a regular backline wizard who pops Bladesong when threatened? Asking for a friend

Necro, but whatever.
I'm making a bladelock gish of the great old one.
There's a UA with invocations that give you a flail that has a buffed up smite (2d8/spell level+reduces movement to zero). Probably going to take my first two feats for moderately armored, and heavily armoured for ac to make up for my weak ass dex, and itll put me at 18 strength.

>>55380677
Why not just take your first level in fighter instead?

Maybe first 2 for action surge.

File: 1443997752340.jpg (70KB, 840x950px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 840x950px

>>55380677
>Necrofag

>>55347530
I've considered replacing the 'extra attack' for blade pacts with a free EB cast if you hit in melee.

>>55382755
How about "when you cast EB, you can instead of each ray, make a melee attack with your pact weapon".

Possibly using CHA.

>>55382776
Oh, make it "attack with weapon" instead, since archery bladepact should be OK.

>>55345838
>But for 5e we have the Bladesinger Wizard and Eldritch Knight Fighter, which feel a tad underwhelming thematically.

>"We need better Gish options but not the current one because shut up", the post.

Bladesinger and Eldritch Knight are great options. Sorcadin is fine if you want burst power and to be the party face who's also a tanking damage dealer who can heal. And yes that build is arcane as well as divine.

There's like a dozen good fighter-mage builds. People are bitching because they're not superior to the pure builds, but if they were, then they'd be bitching about that instead. Most of what's out there is more or less balanced and often very powerful.

My bladesinger is highly thematic, does a great job in the front lines, and is a competent caster. No multiclass at all, not even for action surge. For the most part, my spell choices complement my melee strategy, so there's good synergy.

If what this really is, is "why are people switching away from 3.x waaaaa" then just call it an edition wars thread and be done with it.

>>55364299
Why though? I haven't played AD&D in a while, but weren't Gish always just Fighter/Magic-users? Not some special caster with unique buffing spells? I don't particularly remember them being ultra-powerful synergists, just wizards that can also kick your ass in a melee.

For 5e, just multiclass a fighter and a sorcerer and don't dump charisma, you get basically the same exact thing.

>>55378433

Warlockdin is okay. It feels like it's gonna take a lot of short rests.

Would a Fighter (Eldritch Knight)/Wizard (Bladesinger) multiclass be a decent gish?

>>55387005
The problem is that the abilities don't synergize as well as the abilities you are delaying. You do get a pretty okay Gish flavor though.

Arcane Trickster + Bladesinger probably makes a bit better gish.

>>55345838
Eldritch Knight is solid mechanically, but the reason it feels weak thematically is because - in both mechanics and fluff - it's just "a fighter who is also a wizard". You never learn to, say, cast *scorching ray* through your blade, truly merging swordsmanship with magecraft. Nor is there any cool fluff to hook you in. You're just a fighter who can also cast spells. And that's not bad, but it doesn't exactly inspire. Thank god for Green Flame/Booming Blade.

In terms of other fighting casters we have...

Bards (College of Valor/Blades), who handle the whole Errol Flynn gig pretty well but are pretty narrow otherwise.

Rangers, who are pretty underwhelming even Revised, but mostly use their spell slots for support and the occasional Hail of Thorns/Lightning Arrow rather than actually spellswording it up.

Paladins, who are the most powerful class in 5e.

Bladelocks, who suck a thick cock even as Hexblades with UA Invocations. The Warlock in general could be improved by giving its Pact options some extra non-Invocation oomph.

File: The Slayer.pdf (3MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1x1px

>>55345838
I'm using pic related atm to play a dragon knight. Working out pretty well. Halfcaster, but not exaclty a "conventional" gish though.

>>55387005
I personally think it can work
>7 Eldritch Knight/ 13 Bladesinger.
You have a lot of AC but you don't quite synergize your spellcasting as much as you might like.

My preferred option if your DM allows it would be
>15 Stone Sorcerer/5 Hexblade Bladelock
You get smite spells, eldritch smite, changeable and summonable weapons, and Booming + Greenflame Blade. Lots of HP and Aegises.

It's not quite the perfect merger of spells and weapons as right now there is no channeling/Spellstrike feature for any class but its the best I have seen so far. See >>55369487 for an example.

>>55356476
What "gish problem"?

Paladins and Bladelocks can already spend slots to do extra damage, you moron.

>>55351699
>>55358949
>Bards having swiftquiver pushes them into the first category
I'd just spend the slot on Animate Objects or Hold Monster tbqhfam

Instead of aiming for the heady heights of "not as much damage as a fighter with my action and bonus action, on concentration"

>>55390029
"Gish Problem" was in reference to the thread's question of how to make a better more fitting Gish. My view is that to have a class have some channeling options it would probably go over a little better for some people as what is already in the game can suffice for the Sword + Spellcasters people.

>>55390083
Haste is still a better option than picking up swift quiver, to be honest, its cheaper and gives you the same number of attacks if you had crossbow expert.

>>55390000
>werewolf
>ghost
>dragon

Christ, what are the other subclasses, the rest of the Hammer Horror crew?

I love Bloodrager as Gish.
>Rage
>Get Haste, Blur, Enlarge and Transformation for free when I rage

>>55390000
I'm a touch lost on how the imbue arms feature works at level 10, is it just 1d4 additional damage as I did not expend a spell slot or can I get the higher level version?

>>55365192
Do you have to be unarmed weeb about it, since it's so much easier if you just grab a real weapon.

Dragon Sorc 3/Devotion Paladin X. Gets you unarmored AC, Cha to attacks, stuff like Shield of Faith/Bless for defenses, Swordmage cantrips for chopsocky fun, and you have extra L2 slots to burn for Smite. If you want to be more mystic, swap the level numbers.

>>55390594
>Do you have to be unarmed weeb about it, since it's so much easier if you just grab a real weapon.
Yes, the whole character move around following a path of mental, physical and spiritual perfection relying only on himself. If it were as easy as being a normal paladin I wouldn't be asking.

>>55390529
Upgrades with your Pact Magic slots. So by 10th level it's 1d8.

I think the issue is that there's no ARCANE caster that can effectively combine magic and melee.

Bladelock does it, but they're strictly worse than a normal Warlock unless the DM offers incredibly powerful magic items.

Eldritch Knight is decent. Bladesinger is decent. A Ranger archetype that expanded the spell list for melee would make an excellent gish.

As far as I see, Sorcadin is the best option. Use the paladin fighting style and smites mixed with sorcerer's spell list. Take spells like Blur, Mirror Image, Haste and Chromatic Orb. Replicate multiattack with Quickened Booming Blade.

>>55364952
You have weird definitions of literal, factual, and/or invalidates.

>>55390132
>Haste is still a better option than picking up swift quiver
It took two days for someone to say this. Two days!

>>55391604
>Bladelock does it, but they
>deal very slightly less DPR than a normal warlock at the extremely high levels where wish breaks the game and no one plays if the DM includes no magic weapons at all.
It's not so bad. It's even good for a long time.

>>55391127
Huh alright.

>>55391604
Might I ask whats wrong with this multiclass? >>55390022 a Stone Sorceror/Hexblade Bladelock?

You don't have to rely on the Pally levels for smiting and can get the arcane spell feel.

Paladin
Bladesinger
Cleric
Sor/War/Pal (nearly unlimited smites and unlimited spell slots as confirmed by the devs)

>>55346238
There isn't an arcane/divine split in 5e

>>55346554
Paladins are definitely more essential than wizards, as you will fail more saves than you make without a paladin.

>>55346654
I'd considered EK Fighter/Abj Wizard, but the issue I saw was that your ward's hp isn't getting much above 40, and that's if you go Wizard 20.
As a frontliner, your ward will usually be gone by the time your backliners get hit.

>>55392162
>>55391907
Bladelock is fun. I love bladelock. Bladelock also switches from d10 force damage using their primary stat to d8 piercing damage with their secondary stat. Or, d10/d12 damage with their tertiary (at best) stat. Plus, you'll have somewhere between 2 and 4 spell slots to use useful combat magic like Shield or Mirror Image.

Shillelagh lets you use Cha to attack, but only if you obtain it through Tome pact. SCAG cantrips, on the other hand, could work really well for a Blade/Swashbuckler Roguelock.

tl;dr bladelocks are good for multiclassing.

>>55397463
Oh hey. Just rolled a basic Swashbuckler Roguelock to level 7 and it looks decent. GOO for the telepathy. Disguise self at will. 2d6 sneak attack. Immune to opportunity attacks and can dash as a bonus action. +7 to initiative.

High damage, entirely based around a fusion of magic and blade attacks? Arcane? Isn't just 'mage with sword' or 'fighter with haste?' Roguelock.

>>55345838
Stop trying to make gish a thing